I'm no Obama shmoop, but really, this is beyond the pale. Where's the party leadership? Dean? Pelosi? Rahm? Hell, where's Al Gore? Who will have the guts and decency to tell this woman and her husband to knock it off?

Does our party even HAVE any leaders?

If Howard Dean doesn't have the courage or intelligence to deliver this message, then we need a new party chair. The vile accusations on both sides-- but especially the race-baiting from Hillary and her ex-- have to stop.

Also, there were only 13 state that held primaries in '68. Most don't recall LBJ won New Hampshire and Stephen Young won Ohio.  Smathers took Florida...No, it's easier to contrast '68 and '08 than compare the contests.

Anyway, Hillary hasn't offered a plausible path since early March but no one seemed to mind the chaos she was causing as each week passed. She may be disgusting but at least a couple hundred Democrats bear the shame of offering no resistance. The didn't have to talk to her or even talk past her. They only needed to commit to Barack.  I'm amazed that people who have a stake in a future that won't include Hillary refused to make a timely commitment and assist Barack, long ago. The cowards are no less guilty as accessories to her slashing and burning of Barack and perhaps wasting precious time to lay it on McCain.

Her disgusting remark comparing Zimbabwe to Florida tore it for me. I had just been hanging on as a supporter of hers before then. Now comes her even more disgusting comment on RFK and 1968.  Obama should not - and I strongly believe will not - select her as his number 2.  Hillary has opened her cavernous mouth once too often.

Tell it, Marty, tell it.  

There are too many people who actually like (and, barf, even worship) the monster for anybody to push her out.  Getting rid of her would be bad business for Obama, who'd be blamed for beating up on the little lady.    If the super-delegates were to decide the primary, same deal.  

What drives me nuts are the people who can't admit that it was intentional--another dirty tactic from Nurse Ratchet.  It was SO on purpose.  Are they playing dumb so that they look like they're above fathoming that kind of evil?  Or are they truly unable to understand that, yes, she's capable of going that low.  

Anyway, it makes for great theater.    

Did you hear Howard Wolfson and Terry McAuliffe this morning suggesting that Obama owed HER an apology regarding the RFK insinuation? And did you hear what's his name on ABC try to do the same with David Axelrod? I cannot cannot believe that anybody is naive enough to think she didn't mean it. Tim Russert et al this morning certainly didn't buy it.

Their gall and lack of grace flabbergasts me beyond belief and I am really really getting pissed at the party leadership.

Marty, no matter what people say about you, gotta give you credit for not shying away from the truth and from telling it in plain, deliciously judgmental terms.

On further reflecting about the RFK comments and reviewing Hillary biographies, I have become convinced that the true explanation for her comments is neither the most benign being offered (ham-handed effort to show she's not the first to be continuing a nomination fight into June) nor Marty's malign one (that she feels justified in fighting because Obama could get assassinated).   It's the explanation that should always be the explanation of first resort with Clinton -- narcissism and a grandiose sense of her stature as a historical figure -- yet it has been missing from the commentary to date.  

Hillary cannot stand the idea that her doggedness is being viewed by the leading opinion makers  as pathetic or Huckabeean.   So she is desperate to compare her quest to that of great figures in history.  That is why she never cites Gary Hart's long battle in 1984 as a precedent. Hart, in her eyes, is too insignificant a personage.   She had to wrap herself in the legacy of an iconic historical figure, no matter how inapposite the analogy --  or how unsettling.   Hence, the reach to Bobby Kennedy.  Recall that back in the 1990s, Hillary had a spiritual guru who’d conduct seances to bring back Eleanor Roosevelt and allow Hillary to commune with her.  The Clintons need to see themselves as latter day Kennedys or Roosevelts - as people with true Rushmore-level greatness - rather than as the mere ordinary historical gap fillers or place holders (think Fillmore, Coolidge, Carter) that they in fact are.  So Clinton's narcissism caused her to reach to compare herself to RFK when no rational person would make the comparison.  RFK's bid to win California in June was not, of course, some long shot strategy being pursued in the face of objections to the effect that he was divisively pursuing an all-but-lost cause; because of LBJ's late withdrawal, the field was wide open and no one was begrudging any of the June contestants for making their efforts. But Clinton, smart though she may be when her narcissism is not clouding her perception, had convinced herself for some time that the RFK analogy was apt and suitable.  It's the same thought process that led her to say the other day -- with every indication that she was sincerely buying her own argument -- that her struggle to get Florida seated based on the bogus January election was on a par with the underground railroad or Seneca Falls.  

Having said all of this, I would add that, because Clinton's RFK analogy is beyond strained but is in fact idiotic, she is responsible for opening the door wide to being misinterpreted by Marty and many others like him.  Marty's premise is that someone as smart as Hillary would never make such an inapt historical comparison, and he concludes that the only purpose of the RFK remarks could therefore have been to conjure the specter of assassination.  What he fails to grasp is there is a good reason why narcissism is categorized as a personality disorder, and not just an ordinary quirk:  it leads very smart people to say or do very irrational things that they sincerely believe are justified.  So if Marty and others with similar reactions to the RFK remarks now think Hillary is unqualified by temperament to be President because of ghoulishness, when the real ground for disqualification is extreme narcissism, that is harmless error.  

The Clintons have a penchant for claiming that they are victims of problems of their own making. At first blush it is not at all clear what Hillary Clinton was trying to say when she said that she should stay in the election because, afterall, Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in June. Her efforts to clean up her statement make sense, but it is noticeable that, in typical baby boomer fashion, Hillary Clinton expects the public to be more lenient with her awkward phrasings than she has been with others.

When John Kerry made the botched joke about Bush getting "stuck in Iraq" because he didn't study back when he was in college, Hillary Clinton did not waste any time to figure out what he really meant; she just piled right on him like all of the rest of the yapping dogs.

And when Obama made the sociologically sound point that people embrace the cultural attributes that give them familiarity and comfort when they see no prospect for relief from economic conditions, using the unfortunate phrase "cling to guns and religion," Hillary did not ask that we understand the context and nuances of what Obama was saying; she just piled right on.

But now Hillary demands special privileges and special consideration; just as she has done by expecting the superdelegates to hand her the election after failing to win the popular vote of legitimate primaries and the failing to win the majority of delegates during the primary/caucus season.

The Clintons never want the same rules applied to them that they gleefully apply to everyone else for purposes of political gain. Oh, the advantages of power and privilege. Do we want that mentality to return to the White House?

lduncan: brilliant, brilliant analysis! The light bulb went off in my head.   And it does tie in with the Seneca Falls/Civil Rights analogies she made earlier this week.  And it explains the crazed careening aspect of these last few weeks. Wow. I'm really impressed.

LDuncan, good stuff, but I'm not buying it.  If she wanted to compare herself to the great immortals she need not have used the loaded word: assassination.  She could've merely said that RFK was campaigning in June (of course he was, in 1968 there were primaries in June).

No.  I think I agree with the king.  This is a deliberate (and successful) attempt to:

1. steal the spotlight from Obama-McCain;

2. garner more sympathy and more donations with the victim card;

3. put superdelegates on notice of the risks of supporting Obama; and

4. injuring Obama's chances in November by highlighting the fact that many Americans dislike him enough to try to kill him

All I can say is I hope the Secret Service agents are on their toes.

And, if he makes her his running mate, I am going to ask for my contribution back.

LDuncan, narcissistic and deeply insecure; a dangerous combination. did you ever notice how she nods her head in agreement to what she herself has just said?

LDuncan, narcissistic and deeply insecure; a dangerous combination. did you ever notice how she nods her head in agreement to what she herself has just said?

Blactkton: Might that not simply be narcissistic and narcissistic? I have definitely noticed the head-nodding phenomenon.

Someone should have suggested Hillary needed a day of rest as it was clear to me she was gassed.  During the interview she appeared lost and was finding her way as she went along.  Even at the end of the scary answer she was confused and trailed off more in doubt that she had provided a good answer for the question.

By the time she hit the store latter in the day and had to backpedal she was less fit.  

Hasn't everyone experienced fatigue or exhaustion when emotions take over because the cogent part of the brain won't wake up?  If I'm close to correct it makes Bill's excuse for her previous slips in truth-telling worth a second look.  However, I was under the impression that a person who is sleep deprived is  less likely to lie and the most rehearsed explanation won't be available when the reflexes are weak.  

Whether she remembered bullets in Bosnia or provided a sound reason for continuing the campaign while wasted is less important than considering that both answers became more real in her memory than any logical or reality based reply.  

It suggests that she's lying to herself to justify not quitting and when she's less fit to perform we peer into a wishful sort of thinking.  Clearly she is able to reflect and realize her answers were the motivational tricks she uses to find value in trudging on.  But for all the energy we see? It's clear she knows the source of her drive is based on 'pretending'. Most of the time she's convinced and convincing... she still has a purpose. When she's too tired to admit it we only see her fantasy.

Too bad people who should be concerned don't see her as pathetic.

All of the above is unfortunately true...But...Shades of 2000...She is still being GORED by Florida !

Marty Peretz, you manage to be a liar twice in a post.

First, Hillary made an accurate historical reference. That's what bothers you? Then how come you weren't bothered by Jeremiah Wright, Mr. Messiah's mentor?

Of course, the Department of TNR Propaganda doesn't allow truth. Just utter Mr. Messiah's full name. Barack Hussein Obama, and the demented crowd wil stamp as you as a racist. For saying a man's full legal name! That's how the totalitarian mind functions and that's why we'll have a dictatorship in the US if the Anointed One is elected.

Second, you bastard, you dare say that RFK was the first victim of Palestinian terrorism. Really? Thousands of Jews were murdered byu Arab marauders and assorted Palestinian terrorists before RFK.

But why would Peretz care cares about some Israeli Jews?

I always knew that you are a supporter of Israel as much as your other anti-Semitic friends like Maureen Dowd and Zbigniew are. Here you showed it once more.

LDuncan, thank you for that analysis. Actually, I think her use of the word assassination plays right along with her desire to enhance the glory of the candidate with whom she identifies herself.

The narcissism thing explains the crazy talk about Seneca Falls and Zimbabwe, too.

________________

Sleepy, you need to sleep it off!

MartyCinc, do I disturb your Obama love fest? Perhaps you spend too much time among yes-men.

Why all the attention? How about the press just ignores Hillary Clinton -- as they are Ron Paul, who is also still in the race -- and stops showing up at her self-love fests. She is irrelevant, and maybe if she stops seeing her name in the paper she will realize this.

She is an irrelevant with 47% of the Democratic votes. Some irrelevant!

Sleepyavl,

I appreciate your lonely voice of reason in this nuthouse. For my part, I have stopped reading TNR  blogs (so  why am I posting  here? Followed a link from Martin Kramer's  blog... but am unlikely to do so again.)  

You are dead right about the Department of TNR  Propaganda.  It makes me  sick to read these so-called Democrats fulminating against one of their own, someone who has fought  the good fight  for decades, who is admittedly no saint, but hardly a  demon. (Would that they could admit as much about the Beatific Barack). I'm done with TNR  until after November, and if Obama wins (heaven help us) possibly longer. Hope to see you on the blogs at Commentary.

dkrieger, yes I've noticed you too. Here it looks to me like the Communist Party or The Nation - dissenters not allowed. The language is that of believers. It's not by accident that they have to label dissenters racist or uneducated or old (which tells more about what they don't like...).

Commentary is good. I read it online but never commented.

sleepy, as you are not an American you should realize that frankly the American election is none of your Goddamn business. I don't presume to tell Israelis who they vote for or why, if they were to ask I would say who I like or don't like but sure as hell would not insult what other peoples opinions are of the political situation within their own Democratically elected country. I live in Mexico but am an American citizen. During the elections here (which have more impact to me) I favored Calderon but kept my mouth shut because I respect the citizens of this country. Since you have zero respect for Americans whom you disagree with and since you are not American then what can I say but to politely ask you to fuck off.

blackton, you have commented about Israel in the past, which is none of your goddam business. So knock it off, OK? As long as I respect US laws, which I do, I have the right to say exactly what I want. I also contribute more than you to the US by working in a top US research university, where I advance US science. On the other hand, not being a US citizen, of course I do not vote, as it should be. In case you didn't notice, this is an internet board, not a voting booth.

Perhaps you spent too much time in Mexico and think intimidation and non-sequiturs (that are not based on respect for the law) matter. They don't matter, not for me. Go fuck off and sing at another table.

And by the way, if you care about your arguments, shut you mouth up whenever the dialogue turns to Israel, OK? I will certainly remind you of your argument if I ever see you commenting on anything related to Israel. We Jews have good memories.

I'm also very happy I read LDuncan's post, as it totally checks out. As does Michael's. These things that she says that seem grandeose and unreal - they're just "affirmations"! It reminds me of the Katie Couric interview where Katie said "if you win" and Hillary said "I WILL win", like a correction, and repeated it later, and it really seemed like she was following some sort of Anthony Robbins rule "never say if" or whatever.